Lets get this straight.
The germans are complaining about something that others do wen they seem to have started the thing themselves in the past...
Nothing new tere then!
Any towel left unatended over night by a pool is asking to go for a swim.
@Leky.. nice topical edit
You are viewing a low-graphics version of this page. Click the headline to view full version:
German tabloid mocks British holidaymakers
Revenge on Brit who sued over "too many Germans"
QUOTE (Dafydd @ Jun 7 2008, 10:21 pm) 
Yes (just scroll back to post #32).
Lazy Welshman fails to read entire thread shock horror probe...
QUOTE (Hutcho @ Jun 4 2008, 12:21 pm)
This towel reservation thing is certainly not a German trait in my opinion.
QUOTE (FirstCitizen @ Jun 6 2008, 12:24 pm)
Apparently the Bild poll showed that Germans are pissed off with 'other' tourists reserving sun beds with their towels!? The nerve.
My new fun in Germany when I go to an outside swimming pool is to bring my big England flag towel with me and lay it on a sun lounger. The looks I get. My brother has a better towel, the england flag and RESERVED written through the middle.
and no, I am not a chav.
QUOTE (cb6dba @ Jun 6 2008, 10:58 am)
It would appear that, true to history, the germans (or in this case Bild) have decided they can fight on many fronts..
I heard they have started a words war with the Polish version of Bild..
Funny thing being, the polish version of bild is a daughter firm of Bild.
I heard they have started a words war with the Polish version of Bild..
Funny thing being, the polish version of bild is a daughter firm of Bild.
It hasn't occured to you that this is just a neat way to increase the sales of both papers?
And the prize for pointing the obvious (that no one else thought they needed to mention) goes to...
QUOTE (SquirrelKate @ Jun 10 2008, 11:30 am)
and no, I am not a chav.
I think you'll find that this makes you a chav.
QUOTE (cb6dba @ Jun 10 2008, 2:02 pm)
And the prize for pointing the obvious (that no one else thought they needed to mention) goes to...
Good, just checking. Some people here need to have the obvious spoonfed to them, is all. So someone had to say it.
The Bild article made fun of British fashion? That is the height of fucking cluelessness coming from a land populated by people who still think they're living in the 1980's and that it's perfectly acceptable to wear white socks with sandals, and have mullets
Fucking cheeky bastards, who won the war anyway? (two wars actually)
Fucking cheeky bastards, who won the war anyway? (two wars actually)
QUOTE (FirstCitizen @ Jun 10 2008, 5:15 pm)
...who won the war anyway? (two wars actually)
As I see your are British (don't mention the war, ey ).
). On paper "you" have won exactly one (ww2) and you can feel a tiny bit better than the french who by no means won the war. On paper because without the yanks and Stalins hordes help you would have been in dire straits - sorry but thats how it was.
First ww end was an armistice (armistice day), the cessation of hostilities between Germany and the Allies.
I wonder if thats why they called it 'World War 2' - as you know, like, there were a lot of people fighting and stuff... There could even have been, like, most of the world involved...
Perhaps without the war in italy and the pacific Germany would not have lasted as long as they did.
@DR. Love.. Your last sentence would appear to go against the perception of events, if it was an armistace then why would germany have had to pay reparations?
Don't knock the french, they did a good job and making germany leave troops all over france thereby tieing them up so they couldnt be elsewhere doing more usefull things.
My father used to ask the same question in the 80's - who actualy won the war, while life in west germany seemed so much better than the northern bit of the UK. Then again, its perception, it may not have been.
Perhaps without the war in italy and the pacific Germany would not have lasted as long as they did.
@DR. Love.. Your last sentence would appear to go against the perception of events, if it was an armistace then why would germany have had to pay reparations?
Don't knock the french, they did a good job and making germany leave troops all over france thereby tieing them up so they couldnt be elsewhere doing more usefull things.
My father used to ask the same question in the 80's - who actualy won the war, while life in west germany seemed so much better than the northern bit of the UK. Then again, its perception, it may not have been.
QUOTE
"some Allied decisionmakers felt the war should be "finished," not just stopped, and many voices on both sides voiced the opinion that the war was not really over. But most Allied decisionmakers were eager to see the end of hostilities.
Berlin was almost 900 miles (1,400 km) from the Western Front; no Allied soldier had ever set foot on German soil in anger, and the Kaiser's armies retreated from the battlefield in good order. Thus many Germans, including Adolf Hitler, were convinced their armies had not really been defeated."
Berlin was almost 900 miles (1,400 km) from the Western Front; no Allied soldier had ever set foot on German soil in anger, and the Kaiser's armies retreated from the battlefield in good order. Thus many Germans, including Adolf Hitler, were convinced their armies had not really been defeated."
From Wiki
Did you ever heard of the Treaty of Versailles?
QUOTE
After the war, the Allies imposed a series of peace treaties on the Central Powers. The 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which Germany was kept under blockade until she signed, ended the war.
It declared Germany responsible for the war and required Germany to pay enormous war reparations and award territory to the victors. Unable to pay them with exports (a result of territorial losses and postwar recession), she did so by borrowing from the United States, until the reparations were suspended in 1931. The "Guilt Thesis" became a controversial explanation of events in Britain and the United States. The Treaty of Versailles caused enormous bitterness in Germany, which nationalist movements, especially the Nazis, exploited with a conspiracy theory they called the Dolchstosslegende. The treaty contributed to economic collapse of the Weimar Republic by sparking runaway inflation in the 1920s.
It declared Germany responsible for the war and required Germany to pay enormous war reparations and award territory to the victors. Unable to pay them with exports (a result of territorial losses and postwar recession), she did so by borrowing from the United States, until the reparations were suspended in 1931. The "Guilt Thesis" became a controversial explanation of events in Britain and the United States. The Treaty of Versailles caused enormous bitterness in Germany, which nationalist movements, especially the Nazis, exploited with a conspiracy theory they called the Dolchstosslegende. The treaty contributed to economic collapse of the Weimar Republic by sparking runaway inflation in the 1920s.
Treaty of Versailles
QUOTE
The Treaty of Versailles was a peace treaty that officially ended World War I. It was signed on June 28, 1919, exactly 5 years after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, one of the events that triggered the start of the war.
Although the armistice signed on November 11, 1918 put an end to the actual fighting, it took six months of negotiations at the Paris Peace Conference to conclude a peace treaty. Of the many provisions in the treaty, one of the most important and controversial provisions required Germany and its allies to accept full responsibility for causing the war and, under the terms of articles 231-248, disarm, make substantial territorial concessions and pay reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente powers. The Treaty was undermined by subsequent events starting as early as 1922 and was widely flouted by the mid-thirties.[1]
The result of these competing and sometimes incompatible goals among the victors was a compromise that nobody was satisfied with. Germany was neither pacified nor conciliated, which, in retrospect, did not bode well for the future of Germany, Europe, or the world as a whole
Although the armistice signed on November 11, 1918 put an end to the actual fighting, it took six months of negotiations at the Paris Peace Conference to conclude a peace treaty. Of the many provisions in the treaty, one of the most important and controversial provisions required Germany and its allies to accept full responsibility for causing the war and, under the terms of articles 231-248, disarm, make substantial territorial concessions and pay reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente powers. The Treaty was undermined by subsequent events starting as early as 1922 and was widely flouted by the mid-thirties.[1]
The result of these competing and sometimes incompatible goals among the victors was a compromise that nobody was satisfied with. Germany was neither pacified nor conciliated, which, in retrospect, did not bode well for the future of Germany, Europe, or the world as a whole
QUOTE (cb6dba @ Jun 11 2008, 9:15 am)
Don't knock the french, they did a good job and making germany leave troops all over france thereby tieing them up so they couldnt be elsewhere doing more usefull things.
Yes, I agree with you on tieing the troops up. This can be said on all territories the wehrmacht occupied.
It is almost impossible to keep a hold for long on such large areas as this:
Oh no, wiki attack
Although I see your point, your quotes also show my point. 'Germany was kept under blockade until she signed', in effect with 1 arm twisted behind the back.
'The result of these competing and sometimes incompatible goals among the victors' - you only have victors when someone won. The victors dictated the terms and layed the foundations of all the shit and crap that came next.
How come switzerland manage to always remain neutral? Lets face it, its not as simple as just saying 'hey, guys, we are ging to sit this one out' - I think the dutch and the belgians may have also tried that.
Just whos cash did the swiss have to ensure neutrality (not even going near all the jewish cash they may, or may not have just kept) not just onver 1, but 2 world wars...
Although I see your point, your quotes also show my point. 'Germany was kept under blockade until she signed', in effect with 1 arm twisted behind the back.
'The result of these competing and sometimes incompatible goals among the victors' - you only have victors when someone won. The victors dictated the terms and layed the foundations of all the shit and crap that came next.
How come switzerland manage to always remain neutral? Lets face it, its not as simple as just saying 'hey, guys, we are ging to sit this one out' - I think the dutch and the belgians may have also tried that.
Just whos cash did the swiss have to ensure neutrality (not even going near all the jewish cash they may, or may not have just kept) not just onver 1, but 2 world wars...
QUOTE (cb6dba @ Jun 11 2008, 10:51 am)
Just whos cash did the swiss have to ensure neutrality (not even going near all the jewish cash they may, or may not have just kept) not just onver 1, but 2 world wars...
Everyone's
QUOTE (Dr. Love @ Jun 11 2008, 8:34 am)
As I see your are British (don't mention the war, ey ).
On paper "you" have won exactly one (ww2) and you can feel a tiny bit better than the french who by no means won the war. On paper because without the yanks and Stalins hordes help you would have been in dire straits - sorry but thats how it was.
First ww end was an armistice (armistice day), the cessation of hostilities between Germany and the Allies.
On paper "you" have won exactly one (ww2) and you can feel a tiny bit better than the french who by no means won the war. On paper because without the yanks and Stalins hordes help you would have been in dire straits - sorry but thats how it was.
First ww end was an armistice (armistice day), the cessation of hostilities between Germany and the Allies.
Not too sure I see your point of view on this. Firstly, the battle of Britain - a key turning point during WW2 - occured before the entry of the U.S. Sure, the Americans helped get the job done sooner, but to say Britain would have been defeated without them is very hard to say.
On paper, we had a better Naval fleet than Nazi-Germany, but Germany over powered the British fleet.
On paper, Germany's air superiority should have demolished the RAF but in fact the Luftwaffe were simply out manouvered.
The treaty of Versaille, I agree, was very harsh, though this was initiated more by the French and in effect the second WW was a result of the first WW not ending properly (or by too harsh a punishment on Germany). Germany were pretty stupid too by fighting on too many fronts and by their over-confidence with their rule over Europe. They probably just saw the British, Dutch, French colonies and thought 'we want a piece of the pie too'. But no country in Europe was powerful enough to rule over the rest of Europe. Credit to the Germans though for having a go, as they did what the British would have loved to have done, but instead expeanded her empire outside of Europe, and by building its economy on drugs in China
My Great-Aunt once joked to me: "When we heard that some guy called Adolf Hitler invaded France, everyone was like "Invaded France?! This guy, Adolf, must be a good guy.""
I call Godwin's on this discussion.
Ah, yes the battle of Britain. Let's have a look before that.
In the battle of Dunkirk Hitler let 338.000 Allied soldiers "let go" and were fleeing to Britain. He could have captured and imprisoned them but he didn't, he hoped to achieve a piece treaty with Britain to end the war. Big mistake it turned out.
Hitler had never any dissent with England quite the contrary he admired and respected them and never wanted to go to war with England.
Britain was in a disastrious situation and many politicians were prepared at that time for a peace treaty.
But Winston with his famous speach We shall fight on the beaches (let's say a speech with a pokerface on) and the euphoria from the english people over the miracle "rescue".
The battle of Britain was a first major defeat for the wehrmacht, I would not say key turning point, not for the Germans anyhow but credit to the Brits and its Allies (especially the many Polish pilots) for the battle victory.
With the shift to the eastern front then (attack on Russia) and with the help of the US (lend lease) Britain began to rebuild its military forces.
Without that help and especially with the entry of the US in 41' into the war it would have not been possible much longer for Britain to stay in the war, as this quote from Winston speaks for itself:
In the battle of Dunkirk Hitler let 338.000 Allied soldiers "let go" and were fleeing to Britain. He could have captured and imprisoned them but he didn't, he hoped to achieve a piece treaty with Britain to end the war. Big mistake it turned out.
Hitler had never any dissent with England quite the contrary he admired and respected them and never wanted to go to war with England.
Britain was in a disastrious situation and many politicians were prepared at that time for a peace treaty.
But Winston with his famous speach We shall fight on the beaches (let's say a speech with a pokerface on) and the euphoria from the english people over the miracle "rescue".
QUOTE
In it he tried to temper the national euphoria engendered by this seemingly miraculous delivery (almost the entire army was rescued, a feat thought most improbable beforehand), and send a message to the rest of the world that there would be no negotiated settlement.
The battle of Britain was a first major defeat for the wehrmacht, I would not say key turning point, not for the Germans anyhow but credit to the Brits and its Allies (especially the many Polish pilots) for the battle victory.
With the shift to the eastern front then (attack on Russia) and with the help of the US (lend lease) Britain began to rebuild its military forces.
Without that help and especially with the entry of the US in 41' into the war it would have not been possible much longer for Britain to stay in the war, as this quote from Winston speaks for itself:
QUOTE
"This (the American declaration of war) is what I dreamed of, aimed at and worked for and now it has come to pass." - Winston Churchill, 15th February, 1942i
Never heard about this law.
What do you expect with a topic header like that?
What do you expect with a topic header like that?
QUOTE (Dr. Love @ Jun 11 2008, 10:13 am)
Yes, I agree with you on tieing the troops up. This can be said on all territories the wehrmacht occupied.
It is almost impossible to keep a hold for long on such large areas as this:
It is almost impossible to keep a hold for long on such large areas as this:
Couldn't agree more :
:
Is that a map where you have been to?
I would say the battle of britian was a turning point due to the emergence of air power as driving force in war.
It would have been very hard for the germans to have invaded Britain if they could not defend themselves effectivly from an air attack. As it was not possible to defend german bombers over the UK it is perhaps reasonable to assume they could not defend invading forces.
The battle may not have defeated germany but it made it clear that a conventional invasion of the Britain would have been very costly in terms of resources.
As for it being the first defeat, at this point the Germans had not realy been engaged with a force on the same terms as itself, Poland still had cavalry regiments and france were not prepared for war.
Once the allies had a foothold in europe the Germans were matched by a force equal on terms of equipment etc. At this point, as in any war, logistics, economy and over extension came into play.
The germans and italians had at least received some experience with all the new war toys in the spanish civil war (by helping franco).
If hitler did indeed not wish to go to war with britain he did not let this get in the way of his drive for power in germany, by invading poland he gave the Britain no choice as Britian had said they would defend Poland.
Although hitler dragged germany out of the hole the treaty of versilles had left them in, he was also more interested in power than anything else.
Sometimes I wonder what he could have done if he had had more benevolent intentions and not started the chain of events that would drag Europe into another war.
The seeds of WW2 were sown in the ashes left after WW1, tha´nkfully the generations that have come since use the land for somehting a little bit more productive - such as poking fun at of each other and generaly being happy that france is there to stop the french being anywere else
It would have been very hard for the germans to have invaded Britain if they could not defend themselves effectivly from an air attack. As it was not possible to defend german bombers over the UK it is perhaps reasonable to assume they could not defend invading forces.
The battle may not have defeated germany but it made it clear that a conventional invasion of the Britain would have been very costly in terms of resources.
As for it being the first defeat, at this point the Germans had not realy been engaged with a force on the same terms as itself, Poland still had cavalry regiments and france were not prepared for war.
Once the allies had a foothold in europe the Germans were matched by a force equal on terms of equipment etc. At this point, as in any war, logistics, economy and over extension came into play.
The germans and italians had at least received some experience with all the new war toys in the spanish civil war (by helping franco).
If hitler did indeed not wish to go to war with britain he did not let this get in the way of his drive for power in germany, by invading poland he gave the Britain no choice as Britian had said they would defend Poland.
Although hitler dragged germany out of the hole the treaty of versilles had left them in, he was also more interested in power than anything else.
Sometimes I wonder what he could have done if he had had more benevolent intentions and not started the chain of events that would drag Europe into another war.
The seeds of WW2 were sown in the ashes left after WW1, tha´nkfully the generations that have come since use the land for somehting a little bit more productive - such as poking fun at of each other and generaly being happy that france is there to stop the french being anywere else
QUOTE (Dr. Love @ Jun 11 2008, 1:13 pm)
Ah, yes the battle of Britain. Let's have a look before that.
The Battle of Britain was after Dunkirk which ended the Battle of France.
The battle of Britain was fought by the air forces.
I tend to disagree with this generally perceived idea that the Treaty of Versailles was "too harsh" or "unfair". I think one of the reasons for the resurgence of German aggression, and the second time round in a far uglier mode than the Kaiser & Co was that the Allies didnt go far enough in 1919. Consider: did Germany get a mild Treaty of Versailles after WW2. No. The war was brought right back to their own doorstep, this time the Allies made "Nägel mit Köpfchen", both with the bombing and occupation, as well as the events afterwards: 1/3 of Germany given to Poland & USSR, and 1/3 becoming GDR, plus a wall right through the capital for 40 years.
If they hadnt done all this, then the Stab-in-the-back routine may well have started up again in the 1950s and they might have had another crack at it. May sound a bit harsh, but sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind. If this had been nipped in the bud properly first time round ie 1918/1919 then Europe might have been spared 39-45, at least as far as aggression from Germany was concerned. True post-45 as it turned out the equation becomes more complicated than pre-39 because you then had USA as a nuclear power, and the USSR following on close afterwards, but I think there is something to be said for my point about Versailles being too lenient rather than too harsh.
If they hadnt done all this, then the Stab-in-the-back routine may well have started up again in the 1950s and they might have had another crack at it. May sound a bit harsh, but sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind. If this had been nipped in the bud properly first time round ie 1918/1919 then Europe might have been spared 39-45, at least as far as aggression from Germany was concerned. True post-45 as it turned out the equation becomes more complicated than pre-39 because you then had USA as a nuclear power, and the USSR following on close afterwards, but I think there is something to be said for my point about Versailles being too lenient rather than too harsh.
Why all this detailed posting about the war? There is a bloody good reason that everyone falls asleep in history lessons you know...
A consise explanation of WW I courtesy of Black Adder...
Baldrick: I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich 'cause he was hungry.
Edmund: I think you mean it started when the Archduke of Austro-Hungary got shot.
Baldrick: Nah, there was definitely an ostrich involved, sir.
Edmund: Well, possibly. But the real reason for the whole thing was that it was too much effort not to have a war.
George: By Golly, this is interesting; I always loved history...
Edmund: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war.
Baldrick: But this is a sort of a war, isn't it, sir?
Edmund: Yes, that's right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.
George: What was that, sir?
Edmund: It was bollocks.
Baldrick: So the poor old ostrich died for nothing.
Baldrick: I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich 'cause he was hungry.
Edmund: I think you mean it started when the Archduke of Austro-Hungary got shot.
Baldrick: Nah, there was definitely an ostrich involved, sir.
Edmund: Well, possibly. But the real reason for the whole thing was that it was too much effort not to have a war.
George: By Golly, this is interesting; I always loved history...
Edmund: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war.
Baldrick: But this is a sort of a war, isn't it, sir?
Edmund: Yes, that's right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.
George: What was that, sir?
Edmund: It was bollocks.
Baldrick: So the poor old ostrich died for nothing.
Yawn. How tedious! Britain won the war and the World Cup in 1966.
They haven't won anything since.
Can we move on please?
They haven't won anything since.
Can we move on please?
Homework for this week: Impact of the Treaty of Versailles on the evolution of the German beach towel
QUOTE (islandchick @ Jun 11 2008, 3:22 pm)
Yawn. How tedious! Britain won the war and the World Cup in 1966.
They haven't won anything since.
Can we move on please?
They haven't won anything since.
Can we move on please?
You have dearly insulted me...we also won the world cup in 2003
Extra homework for island chick..
Rugby, cricket and hockey...
Football is not the only sport
I love that series of blackadder... BL - blacjadder, BD - baldrick, G - george
BL - Where are we Baldrick,
BD - We appear to be in a mushroom field..
BL - Baldrick, that is a military map, it is unlikley to note intesesting flora and fungi...Look at what signs mean.
BD - It says this field belongs to guy who wrote the map.
BL - What, what do you mean..
BD - It says mine field...
BL - I think baldrick, you will find thatmeans we have wandreed into a mine field.
G - How very exciting, what is standard proceedure when standing on a mine?
BL - Jump 300 feet in the air and spread yourself over a wide area...
Rugby, cricket and hockey...
Football is not the only sport
I love that series of blackadder... BL - blacjadder, BD - baldrick, G - george
BL - Where are we Baldrick,
BD - We appear to be in a mushroom field..
BL - Baldrick, that is a military map, it is unlikley to note intesesting flora and fungi...Look at what signs mean.
BD - It says this field belongs to guy who wrote the map.
BL - What, what do you mean..
BD - It says mine field...
BL - I think baldrick, you will find thatmeans we have wandreed into a mine field.
G - How very exciting, what is standard proceedure when standing on a mine?
BL - Jump 300 feet in the air and spread yourself over a wide area...
Another reminder for Island Chick
Yes, but that was in 2003. You didn't win the last one so you are no longer the world champions. And it's been what? 3 years since the Ashes?
Bah! West Indies may be shit at cricket now, but we don't bang on about how great we used to be and that time we bowled out England for 45 in Trinidad. We just hang our heads in shame when fucking Bangladesh beat us and vow to do better next time...
Bah! West Indies may be shit at cricket now, but we don't bang on about how great we used to be and that time we bowled out England for 45 in Trinidad. We just hang our heads in shame when fucking Bangladesh beat us and vow to do better next time...
but we don't bang on about how great we used to be and that time we bowled out England for 45 in Trinidad. We just hang our heads in shame when fucking Bangladesh beat us and vow to do better next time... 
QUOTE (islandchick @ Jun 11 2008, 6:56 pm)
We just hang our heads in shame when fucking Bangladesh beat us and vow to do better next time...
You have sunk low...
QUOTE (islandchick @ Jun 11 2008, 3:22 pm)
Yawn. How tedious! Britain won the war and the World Cup in 1966.
They haven't won anything since.
Can we move on please?
They haven't won anything since.
Can we move on please?
QUOTE (islandchick @ Jun 11 2008, 6:56 pm)
Yes, but that was in 2003. You didn't win the last one so you are no longer the world champions. And it's been what? 3 years since the Ashes?
Bah! West Indies may be shit at cricket now, but we don't bang on about how great we used to be and that time we bowled out England for 45 in Trinidad. We just hang our heads in shame when fucking Bangladesh beat us and vow to do better next time...
Bah! West Indies may be shit at cricket now, but we don't bang on about how great we used to be and that time we bowled out England for 45 in Trinidad. We just hang our heads in shame when fucking Bangladesh beat us and vow to do better next time...
Yes I know very well we didn't win the last one, 2nd isn't bad though, but anyway your comment was that we haven't won anything since 1966, some of us consider winning the RWC a much greater achievement than 1966, as for the ashes, we'll get them again...eventually!!
You are viewing a low fidelity version of this page. Click to view the full page.